Temple

The plaintiffs include Mekkazhi Moothedath Balan (deceased), Mekkazhi Moothedath Bhargavi, Swaroop Raj, and Swaraj. The case was about a civil suit which has been dismissed as withdrawn, allowing the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit.

Roopa Narayan Misra is the plaintiff seeking a perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants, which include the Diety Of Virattamkandy Sri. Bhagavathi Temple and others. The suit was dismissed for default due to the absence of the plaintiff's representation.

The case involves Manathanath Kodavachalil Janardhanan Nair and Manathanath Kodavachalil Malathi Amma as petitioners against Iringadan Palli Sree Mahavishnu Temple and several others as respondents regarding the transfer of an execution petition. The court is discussing the transfer of the case to another Munsiff Court.

P Jayapramod is the plaintiff, and Puthiyappa Parambath Sree Bhagavathi Kshethra along with its Secretary and President are the defendants. The case was dismissed for default as no steps were taken to implead legal heirs of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Edoli Pankajam, seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction and recovery of possession against the defendants, Pulparambil Aneesh and Ralanth Kumar, regarding a property related to the Poloor Subramania Temple. The defendants, a committee associated with the temple, argue that the suit lacks necessary parties and is not maintainable.

The plaintiffs, represented by Praveen Kumar P and Sathianandan VC, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, including the Puthoor Sreekaramvelly Kshethram Committee and its officials. The court dismissed the suit for default due to the absence of the plaintiff.

Sarath K.S. filed a suit against Kozhikode Sri. Kanchi Kamakshi Amman Temple and its committee members. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff did not press the case.

The plaintiff Raghuveer has sued for a mandatory and prohibitory injunction concerning the use of a property pathway, which he claims is essential for accessing his owned properties. The defendants include a temple and its management board, which assert that the plaintiff has no legal right over the disputed pathway.

This case involves Ayantavila Sree Mahalekshmi Temple and its Secretary Sujanalal as plaintiffs against Suresh Kumar. R. and others as defendants. The plaintiffs decided to not press the suit, resulting in its dismissal.

The case involves Ayantavila Sree Mahalekshmi Temple represented by its Secretary S. Sujanalal against several defendants including Suresh Kumar. R. The suit was dismissed as not pressed by the plaintiffs.